Journalistik praxistheoretisch betreiben

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird eine praxistheoretische Journalistik vorgeschlagen, die einen alternativen und innovativen Blick auf die gegenwärtigen empirischen Herausforderungen des Journalismus unter den Bedingungen der Digitalisierung verspricht. Die Betrachtung von Abgrenzungsproblemen, Technikwandel, Finanzierungslücken und prominent behaupteten Legitimitätsverlusten im Journalismus soll beispielhaft verdeutlichen, worin die praxistheoretische Herangehensweise besteht. Erläutert werden ihre jeweiligen Vorzüge in der Bearbeitung dieser Problemlagen, auch im Vergleich zu etablierten Journalismustheorien. Die besondere Relevanz der Theorieperspektive ergibt sich demnach vor allem durch (1.) ihre zentrale Ausrichtung auf journalistische Praktiken, (2.) die Überschreitung konventioneller Grenzen des Journalismus, (3.) die Denaturalisierung journalistischer Normen und Gesetze, (4.) die explizite Berücksichtigung einer materiellen, soziotechnischen Dimension, (5.) besondere Aufmerksamkeit für die spannungsgeladenen Verbindungen von journalistischer Praxis und Medienmanagement sowie (6.) den Vorrang von Ordnungserzeugung vor Stabilität.

Abstract

This paper proposes a practice-theoretical journalism research approach that promises to present an alternative and innovative perspective to the current empirical challenges of journalism which are mainly driven by digitization. It combines the general theme of this special issue to previous contributions within the “Publizistik” debate. By examining the problems of demarcation, technological changes, finance gaps and the loss of legitimacy in journalism; this article exemplifies the practice-theoretical approach and explains its respective advantages in coping with these challenges.

After an introduction, the second section describes four intertwined problem areas that challenge journalism extensively today: The first problem area is the increasing problem of definition and demarcation through digital media that has led to a growing uncertainty about which phenomena can still be regarded as ‘journalistic’. Second is the strong pressure placed on journalism to change due to even faster developing new technologies that influence its work methods, its genres and the organization of labor. The third area is the economic difficulty arising under the new competitive conditions of digitization (‘attention economy’) that fundamentally disrupt the traditional business model of publishers. The fourth problem area is the prominently debated crisis of legitimacy and authority of established products and organizations in journalism. As this section highlights, these empirical challenges are primarily triggered and accelerated by the digitization of today’s media environment.

The third section begins by proposing a practice-theoretical approach as a ‘toolkit’ for productive examination of these structural disruptions and rapid developments. The proposed approach does not present a pre-defined system of hypotheses, but primarily introduces a fundamental starting point for new research questions and empirical investigations from an alternative perspective. The particular relevance of the theoretical perspective thereby arises from (1) its central decision to observe journalistic practices, (2) the transgression of conventional boundaries of journalism, (3) the denaturalization of journalistic norms and laws, (4) the explicit consideration of a material, sociotechnical dimension of journalism, (5) the focus on the tension between journalistic practices and media management, and (6) from prioritizing order generation over stability.

The second part of the third section applies the theoretical lens to reconceptualize the empirical challenges of digitization described in the second section and to provide examples of the usefulness of this perspective. In this section, the following advantages are emphasized, among others: First, from a practice theoretical viewpoint, established practices, traditional actors and reified norms do not mark the boundaries of the phenomenon; the crisis of journalism’s demarcation can be reinterpreted as a promising opportunity to diversify the concept of journalism. Second, by examining the processes of technology and its role within social practices, the practice-theoretical approach advances the current perspective on technology in journalism research thus contributing to its development towards a socio-technological and data-orientated field of investigation. Third, the financial upheavals of journalism are viewed in the context of the tense relationship between journalistic practices and media management practices without however, assuming a fundamental primacy of economic constraints. Fourth, practice theories shift our perspective on the legitimacy and authority crises of journalism; from this viewpoint, it is clear that journalism does not form a fixed, reified entity, but is constantly in a process of emergence.

The fourth section sums up the conceptual advantages of the theoretical perspective with regard to current problem areas. Nevertheless, the proposed conceptualization of journalism will not solve all of its contemporary challenges. Against this background, the section also presents criticism of the practice-theoretical approach. The limits elaborated here point to the fact that a fruitful pluralism of theory is indeed needed to advance journalism research. The paper concludes with methodological insights on where research can start empirically: e. g., by examining individual practices that are studied in depth, by focusing on specific ‘sites of the social’ or by focusing on larger constellations of practice (e. g., journalistic networks). Qualitative observational studies are proposed as the most suitable methods for these investigations.